M/S. KHODAY INDIA LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

The submission of Mr. Aravind, learned counsel for the revenue that if the employer fails to deduct the employees' contribution on or before the due date, contemplated under the provisions of the PF Act and the PF Scheme, that would have to be treated as income within the meaning of Section 2(24)(x) of the IT Act and in which case, the assessee is liable to pay tax on the said amount treating that as his income, deserves to be rejected.

With respect, we find it difficult to endorse the view taken by the Gujarat High Court. We agree with the view taken by this Court in W.A.No.4077/2013.

In the result, the appeal is allowed and the substantial question of law framed by us is answered in favour of the appellant-assessee and against the respondent-revenue. There shall be no order as to costs." 7.2 The further question is whether the amendment to section 36[1][va] and 43B of the Act by Finance Act, 2021 is clarificatory and declaratory in nature. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent judgment in the case of M.M. Aqua Technologies Limited v. CIT reported in (2021) 436 ITR 582 (SC) had held that retrospective provision in a taxing Act which is "for the removal of doubts" cannot be presumed to be retrospective, if it alters or changes the law as it earlier stood (page 597). In this case, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Essae Teraoka (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (supra) the assessee would have been entitled to deduction of employees' contribution to ESI, if the payment was made prior to due date of filing of the return of income u/s 139(1) of the I.T. Act. Therefore, the amendment brought about by the Finance Act, 2021 to section 36[1][va] and 43B of the I.T. Act, alters the position of law adversely to the assessee. Therefore, such amendment cannot be held to be retrospective in nature. Even otherwise, the amendment has been mentioned to be effective from 01.04.2021 and will apply for and from assessment year 2021-2022 onwards. The following orders of the Tribunal had categorically held that the amendment to section 36[1][va] and 43B of the Act by Finance Act, 2021 is only prospective in nature and not retrospective. (i) Dhabriya Polywood Limited v. ACIT reported in (2021) 63 CCH 0030 Jaipur Trib.

Following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of M/s.Shakuntala Agarbathy Company (supra) and also the binding decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Essae Teraoka Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (supra), we hold that the employees contribution paid by the assessee towards PF & ESI before the due date of filing the return of income u/s.139(1) of the Act is an allowable as a deduction.

Accordingly, the appeal for AY 2019-20 is decided in favour of the assessee.

As far as the appeal for AY 2018-19 is concerned, the CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal rejecting condonation of delay of 731 in filing the appeal before him, without going into the merits of the issue. The explanation for the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee was that intimation u/s. 143(1) was received on 21.11.2019 and the assessee’s counsel passed away on 14.12.2019 whereby there was dislocation of work. The assessee was entitled for a refund of Rs.18,65,473 as per intimation which was granted by the AO after affording opportunity to the assessee. The assessee was unaware of the adjustment made in the intimation and since there was no demand payable but only a reduction of loss, the adjustment made in the intimation escaped assessee’s attention. Due to COVID-19 pandemic, the Supreme Court granted extension of limitation from 15.3.2020 till 2.10.2021. Thus, the assessee was prevented by bonafide reasons in filing the appeal belatedly.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Mst. Katiji (supra), has explained the principles that need to be kept in mind while considering an application for condonation of delay. The Hon’ble Apex Court has emphasized that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations. The Court has also explained that a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging the appeal late. The Court has also explained that every day’s delay must be explained does not mean that a pedantic approach should be taken. The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense and pragmatic manner. In the case of Shakuntala Hegde, L/R of R.K. Hegde v. ACIT, for the A.Y. 1993-94, the Tribunal condoned the delay of about 1331 days in filing the appeal wherein the plea of delay in filing appeal due to advice given by a new counsel was accepted as sufficient. The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. ISRO Satellite Centre, ITA No. 532/2008 dated 28.10.2011 has condoned the delay of five years in filing appeal before them which was explained due to delay in getting legal advice from its legal advisors and getting approval from Department of Science and PMO. In the aforesaid decision, the Hon’ble Court found that the very liability of the assessee was non-existent and therefore condoned the delay in filing appeal. In condoning the delay in filing the appeals, the expression ‘sufficient cause’ should receive liberal construction and advancement of substantial justice is of prime importance. Discretion of condoning the delay has to be exercised on the facts of each case.

Keeping in mind the aforesaid principles, we find that the explanation of the assessee for delay in filing the appeals put forth before the CIT(Appeals) are bonafide and genuine reasons which constitute ‘sufficient cause’ for the delay. The number of days of delay cannot be looked in isolation and the reasons or explanation of the assessee for the delay have to be considered in the light of the test of bonafide reasons constituting sufficient cause for the delay in a pragmatic manner. In our opinion, the CIT(Appeals) ought to have condoned the delay in the instant case and adjudicated the appeals on merits. We therefore condone the delay in filing both the appeals before the CIT(Appeals).

Having condoned the delay, though in the normal circumstances this appeal ought to have been restored to the CIT(Appeals) for decision on merits, but the impugned issue on merits being a covered issue in favour of the assessee by the decisions of this Tribunal and the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court and the issue having been held in favour of the assessee for AY 2019-20, we deem it appropriate to delete the disallowance of employees contribution to PF & ESI for this year, i.e., AY 2018-19 also and allow the appeal.

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed.